Is There a Gay Agenda?

It's no crime to have an agenda.  But it is unbelievable that every time someone mentions The Gay Agenda that it is laughed off by the activist gay community as if there isn't one.

Come on guys, you are smart, gifted, talented, unified, organized and often put the rest of us to shame because you are so effective in accomplishing your mission. Just admit it.

Or, is there such a disconnect between smaller gay rights proponents and activists that they really do not know what HRC, GLAAD, GLSEN, NGLTF, etc. are trying to accomplish? 

Those of you who read the following reprinted article can decide for yourself...the article was written in 1987 and appeared in Guide Magazine.  Looks like an agenda, smells like an agenda, it's an agenda.  And, as you read, you will see that this particular agenda has been accomplished.

(BELOW, YELLOW HIGHLIGHTS ARE NOT MINE--I COULD NOT REMOVE THEM.  THEY DO NOT HIGHLIGHT ANYTHING SPECIAL IN MY OPINION)

The Overhauling of Straight America

by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill

The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.

At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full "appreciation" or "understanding" of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America.

And any campaign to accomplish this turnaround should do six things.

STEP 1: TALK ABOUT GAYS AND GAYNESS AS LOUDLY AND AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE.

The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of one's fellows doing it or accepting it. One may be offended by its novelty at first-- many, in times past, were momentarily scandalized by "streaking,'' eating goldfish, and premarital sex. But as long as Joe Six-pack feels little pressure to perform likewise, and as long as the behavior in question presents little threat to his physical and financial security, he soon gets used to it and life goes on. The skeptic may still shake his head and think "people arc crazy these days," but over time his objections are likely to become more reflective, more philosophical, less emotional.

The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality. Even rancorous debates between opponents and defenders serve the purpose of desensitization so long as "respectable" gays are front and center to make their own pitch. The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.

And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent--only later his unsightly derriere!

Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message-- of normalcy. So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream. Bit by bit over the past ten years, gay characters and gay themes have been introduced into TV programs and films (though often this has been done to achieve comedic and ridiculous affects). On the whole the impact has been encouraging. The prime-time presentation of Consenting Adults on a major network in 1985 is but one high-water mark in favorable media exposure of gay issues. But this should be just the beginning of a major publicity blitz by gay America.

Would a desensitizing campaign of open and sustained talk about gay issues reach every rabid opponent of homosexuality? Of course not. While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency. Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science & Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed "secular humanism"). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here.

STEP 2: PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS.

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our "gay pride" publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and sparking their hostile paranoia-"They are all around us!"--on the other.

A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower it's guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [Ed note -- North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)

Now, there are two different messages about the Gay Victim that are worth communicating. First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: "As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn't willfully contrary - it's only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!"

Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. Mr. and Mrs. Public must be given no extra excuses to say, "they are not like us." To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards, completely unexceptionable in appearance--in a word, they should be indistinguishable from the straights we would like to reach. (To return to the terms we have used in previous articles, spokesmen for our cause must be R-type "straight gays" rather than Q-type "homosexuals on display.") Only under such conditions will the message be read correctly: "These folks are victims of a fate that could have happened to me."

By the way, we realize that many gays will question an advertising technique, which might threaten to make homosexuality look like some dreadful disease, which strikes fated "victims". But the plain fact is that the gay community is weak and must manipulate the powers of the weak, including the play for sympathy. In any case, we compensate for the negative aspect of this gay victim appeal under Principle 4. (Below)

The second message would portray gays as victims of society. The straight majority does not recognize the suffering it brings to the lives of gays and must be shown: graphic pictures of brutalized gays; dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, and public humiliation: and the dismal list goes on.

STEP 3: GIVE PROTECTORS A JUST CAUSE.

A media campaign that casts gays as society's victims and encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for those to respond to assert and explain their new protectiveness. Few straight women, and even fewer straight men, will want to defend homosexuality boldly as such. Most would rather attach their awakened protective impulse to some principle of justice or law, to some general desire for consistent and fair treatment in society. Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme. The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws-these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.

It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma, so defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter dogma with principle.

STEP 4: MAKE GAYS LOOK GOOD.

In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know--this trick is so old it creaks. Other minorities use it all the time in ads that announce proudly, "Did you know that this Great Man (or Woman) was _________?" But the message is vital for all those straights who still picture gays as "queer" people-- shadowy, lonesome, fail, drunken, suicidal, child- snatching misfits.

The honor roll of prominent gay or bisexual men and women is truly eyepopping. From Socrates to Shakespeare, from Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, from Michelangelo to Walt Whitman, from Sappho to Gertrude Stein, the list is old hat to us but shocking news to heterosexual
America.  In no time, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.

Along the same lines, we shouldn't overlook the Celebrity Endorsement. The celebrities can be straight (God bless you, Ed Asner, wherever you are) or gay.

STEP 5: MAKE THE VICTIMIZERS LOOK BAD.

At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights-long after other gay ads have become commonplace-it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. (This will be all the more necessary because, by that time, the entrenched enemy will have quadrupled its output of vitriol and disinformation.) Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream's self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.

The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the "fags" they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.

A campaign to vilify the victimizers is going to enrage our most fervid enemies, of course. But what else can we say? The shoe fits, and we should make them try it on for size, with all of America watching.

STEP 6: SOLICIT FUNDS: THE BUCK STOPS HERE

Any massive campaign of this kind would require unprecedented expenditures for months or even years--an unprecedented fundraising drive.

Effective advertising is a costly proposition: several million dollars would get the ball rolling. There are 10-15 million primarily homosexual adults in this country: if each one of them donated just two dollars to the campaign, its war chest would actually rival that of its most vocal enemies. And because those gays not supporting families usually have more discretionary income than average, they could afford to contribute much more.

But would they? Or is the gay community as feckless, selfish, uncommitted, and short-sighted as its critics claim? We will never know unless the new campaign simultaneously launches a concerted nationwide appeal for funding support from both known and anonymous donors. The appeal should be directed both at gays and at straights who care about social justice.

In the beginning, for reasons to be explained in a moment, the appeal for funds may have to be launched exclusively through the gay press--national magazines, local newspapers, flyers at bars, notices in glossy skin magazines. Funds could also come through the outreach of local gay organizations on campuses and in metropolitan areas. Eventually, donations would be solicited directly alongside advertisements in the major straight media.

There would be no parallel to such an effort in the history of the gay community in America. If it failed to generate the needed capital to get started; there would be little hope for the campaign and l little hope for major progress toward gay rights in the near future. For the moment let us suppose that gays could see how donations would greatly serve their long-term interest, and that sufficient funds could be raised. An heroic assumption.

GETTING ON THE AIR, OR, YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE.

Without access to TV, radio, and the mainstream press, there will be no campaign. This is a tricky problem, became many impresarios of the media simply refuse to accept what they call "issue-advertising" -- persuasive advertising can provoke a storm of resentment from the public and from sponsors, which is bad for business. The courts have confirmed the broadcaster's right to refuse any "issue advertising" he dislikes.

What exactly constitutes "issue advertising"? It evidently does not include platitudinous appeals to the virtues of family unity (courtesy of the Mormons) neither does it include tirades against perfidious Albion courtesy of Lyndon LaRouche); neither does it include reminders that a Mind-Is-a Terrible Thing to Waste (courtesy of the United Negro College Fund); neither does it include religious shows which condemn gay "sinners"; neither does it include condemnations of nuclear war or race discrimination--at least not in Massachusetts. Some guys get all the breaks.

What issue advertising does include these days is almost any communiqué presented openly by a homosexual organization. The words "gay" and "homosexual"' are considered controversial whenever they appear.

Because most straightforward appeals are impossible, the National Gay Task Force has had to cultivate quiet backroom liaisons with broadcast companies and newsrooms in order to make sure that issues important to the gay community receive some coverage; but such an arrangement is hardly ideal, of course, because it means that the gay community's image is controlled by the latest news event instead of by careful design--and recently most of the news about gays has been negative.

So what can be done to crash the gates of the major media? Several things, advanced in several stages.

START WITH THE FINE PRINT

Newspapers and magazines may very well be hungrier for gay advertising dollars than television and radio arc. And the cost of ads in print is generally lower. But remember that the press, for the most part, is only read by better-educated Americans, many of who are already more accepting of homosexuality in any case. So to get more impact for our dollars, we should skip the

New Republic and New Left Review readers and head for Time, People, and the National Enquirer. (Of course, the gay community may have to establish itself as a regular advertising presence in more sophisticated forums first before it is accepted into the mass press.)

While we're storming the battlements with salvos of ink, we should also warm the mainstream up a bit with a subtle national campaign on highway billboards. In simple bold print on dark backgrounds, a series of unobjectionable messages should be introduced:

INRUSSIA, THEY TELL YOU WHAT TO BE. IN AMERICAWE HAVE THE FREEDOM TO BE  OURSELVES...AND TO BE THE BEST.

Or

PEOPLE HELPING INSTEAD OF HATING--THAT'S WHAT AMERICAIS ALL ABOUT.

And so on. Each sign will tap patriotic sentiment, each message will drill a seemingly agreeable proposition into mainstream heads - a "public service message" suited to our purposes. And, if their owners will permit it, each billboard will be signed, in slightly smaller letters, "Courtesy of the National Gay Task Force" - to build positive associations and get the public used to seeing such sponsorship.

VISUAL STAGE 1: YOU REALLY OUGHTTA BE IN PICTURES

As for television and radio, a more elaborate plan may be needed to break the ice. For openers, naturally, we must continue to encourage the appearance of favorable gay characters in films and TV shows. Daytime talk shows also remain a useful avenue for exposure.

But to speed things up we might consider a bold stratagem to gain media attention. The scheme we have in mind would require careful preparations, yet it would save expense even while it elevated the visibility and stature of the gay movement overnight.

Well before the next elections for national office, we might lay careful plans to run symbolic gay candidates for every high political office in this country. (Such plans would have to deal somehow with the tricky problem of inducing gays and straights to sign enough endorsement petitions to get us on the ballot.) Our 50- 250 candidates would participate in such debates as they could, run gay-themed advertisements coordinated at our national headquarters, and demand equal time on the air. They could then graciously pull out of the races before the actual elections, while formally endorsing more viable straight contenders. (With malicious humor, perhaps, in some states we could endorse our most rabid opponents.) It is essential not to ask people actually to vote Yea or Nay on the gay issue at this early stage: such action would end up committing most to the Nay position and would only tally huge and visible defeats for our cause.

Through such a political campaign, the mainstream would get over the initial shock of seeing gay ads, and the acceptability of such ads would be fortified by the most creditable context possible; and all this would be accomplished before non-electoral advertising was attempted by the gay community. During the campaign all hell would break loose, but if we behaved courageously and respectable our drive would gain legitimacy in and case and might even become a cause celebre. If all went as planned, the somewhat desensitized public and the major networks themselves would be 'readied for the next step of our program.

VISUAL STAGE 2: PEEKABOO ADVERTISING

At this point the gay community has its foot in the door, and it is time to ask the networks to accept gay sponsorship of certain ads and shows. Timing is critical: The request must be made immediately after our national political ads disappear. Failing that, we should request sponsorship the next time one of the networks struts its broad-mindedness by televising a film or show with gay characters or themes. If they wish to look consistent instead of hypocritical, we'll have them on the spot.

But the networks would still be forced to say No unless we made their resistance look patently unreasonable, and possibly illegal. We'd do just that by proposing "gay ads" patterned exactly after those currently sponsored by the Mormons and others. As usual, viewers would be treated to squeak-clean skits on the importance of family harmony and understanding --this time the narrator would end by saying, "This message was brought to you by --the National Gay Task Force." All very quiet and subdued. Remember: exposure is everything, and the medium is the message.

The gay community should join forces with other civil liberties groups of respectable cast to promote bland messages about America the Melting Pot, always ending with an explicit reference to the Task Force of some other gay organization. Making the best of a bad situation, we can also propose sympathetic media appeals for gifts and donations to fund AIDS research--if Jerry Lewis and the March of Dimes can do it, so can we. Our next indirect step will be to advertise locally on behalf of support groups peripheral to the gay community: frowzy straight moms and dads announcing phone numbers and meeting times for "Parents of Gays" or similar gatherings. Can't you just see such ads now, presented between messages from the Disabled Vets and the Postal Workers Union?

VISUAL STAGE 3: ROLL OUT THE BIG GUNS

By this point, our salami tactics will have carved out, slice by slice, a large portion of access to the mainstream media. So what then? It would finally be time to bring gay ads out of the closet. The messages of such ads should directly address lingering public fears about homosexuals as loathsome and contrary aliens. For examples, the following are possible formats for TV or radio commercials designed to chip away at chronic misperceptions.

Format A - for Familiarization:  The Testimonial.

To make gays seem less mysterious, present a series of short spots featuring the boy-or girl-next-door, fresh and appealing, or warm and lovable grandma grandpa types. Seated in homey surroundings, they respond to an off camera interviewer with assurance, good nature, and charm. Their comments bring out three social facts:

1. There is someone special in      their life, a long-term relationship (to stress gay stability, monogamy,      commitment);
         
2. Their families are very      important to them, and are supportive of them (to stress that gays are not  "anti-family," and that families need not be anti-gay.)
         
3. As far as they can remember they have always been gay, and were probably born gay; they certainly never decided on a preference one way or the other (stressing that gays are doing what is natural for them, and are not being willfully contrary). The subjects should be interviewed alone, not with their lovers or children, for to include others in the picture would unwisely raise disturbing questions about the complexities of gay social relations, which these commercials could not explain. It is best instead to take one thing at a time.

Format B - for Positive Associations:  The Celebrity Spot.

While it might be useful to present celebrity endorsements by currently popular gay figures and straight sympathizers (Johnny Mathis? Marlo Thomas?), the homophobia climate of Americawould make such brash endorsements unlikely in the near future. So early celebrity spots will instead identify historical gay or bisexual personalities who are illustrious and dignified...and dead. The ads could be sardonic and indirect. For example, over regal music and a portrait or two, a narrator might announce simply: Michelangelo (an art class), Tchaikovsky (a music class), Tennessee Williams (a drama class), etc.

Format C - for Victim Sympathy:  Our Campaign to Stop Child Abuse.

As we said earlier, there are many ways to portray gays as victims of discrimination: images of brutality, tales of job loss and family separation, and so on. But we think something like the following 30-sccond commercials would get to the heart of the matter best of all.

The camera slowly moves in on a middle-class teenager, sitting alone in his semi-darkened bedroom. The boy is pleasing and unexceptional in appearance, except that he has been roughed up and is staring silently, pensively, with evident distress. As the camera gradually focuses in on his face, a narrator comments: It will happen to one in every ten sons. As he grows up he will realize that he feels differently about things than most of his friends. If he lets it show, he'll be an outsider made fun of, humiliated, attacked. If he confides in his parents, they may throw him out of the house, onto the streets. Some will say he is "anti- family." Nobody will let him be himself. So he will have to hide. From his friends, his family. And that's hard. It's tough enough to be a kid these days, but to be the one in ten... A message from the National Gay Task Force.

What is nice about such an ad is that it would economically portray gays as innocent and vulnerable, victimized and misunderstood, surprisingly numerous yet not menacing. It also renders the "anti-family" charge absurd and hypocritical.

Format D - for Identification with Victims:  The Old Switcheroo.

The mainstream will identify better with the plight of gays if straights can, once in a while, walk a mile in gay shoes. A humorous television or radio ad to help them do this might involve a brief animated or dramatized scenario, as follows.

The camera approaches the mighty oak door of the boss's office, which swings open, and the camera (which represents you the viewer) enters the room. Behind the oversized desk sits a fat and scowling old curmudgeon chomping on a cigar. He looks up at the camera (i.e. at the viewer) and snarls, " So it's you, Smithers. Well you're fired!" The voice of a younger man is heard to reply with astonishment, "But--but--Mr. Thomburg, I've been with your company for ten years. I thought you liked my work." The boss responds, with a tone of disgust, "Yes, yes, Smithers your work is quite adequate. But I've heard rumors that you've been seen around town with some kind of girlfriend. A girlfriend! Frankly I'm shocked. We're not about to start hiring any heterosexuals in this company. Now get out." The younger man speaks once more: "But boss, that's just not fair! What if it were you?" The boss glowers back as the camera pulls quickly out of the room and the big door slams shut. Printed on the door: "A message from the National Gay Task Force."

One can easily imagine similar episodes involving housing or other discrimination.

Format E - for Vilification of Victimizers:  Damn the Torpedoes.

We have already indicated some of the images which might be damaging to the homophobic vendetta: ranting and hateful religious extremists neo-Nazis, and Ku Klux Klansmen made to look evil and ridiculous (hardly a difficult task).

These images should be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the "bracket technique." For example, for a few seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is seen pounding the pulpit in rage about "those sick, abominable creatures." While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to pathetic photos of gays who look decent, harmless, and likable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher, and so forth. The contrast speaks for itself. The effect is devastating.

Format F - for Funds:  SOS

Alongside or during these other persuasive advertisements, we would have to solicit donations so that the campaign might continue. Direct appeals from celebrities (preferable living ones, thank you) might be useful here. All appeals must stress that money can be given anonymously (e.g. via money orders) and that all donations are confidential. "We can't help unless you help," and all that.

The Time Is Now

We have sketched out here a blueprint for transforming the social values of straight America. At the core of our program is a media campaign to change the way the average citizens view homosexuality. It is quite easy to find fault with such a campaign. We have tried to be practical and specific here, but the proposals may still have a visionary sheen.

There are one hundred reasons why the campaign could not be done or would be risky. But there are at least 20 million good reasons why some such program must be tried in the coming years: the welfare and happiness of every gay man and woman in this country demand it. As the last large, legally oppressed minority in American society, it is high time that gays took effective measures to rejoin the mainstream in pride and strength. We believe that, like it or not, such a campaign is the only way of doing so anytime soon.

And, let us repeat, time may be running out. The AIDS epidemic is sparking anger and fear in the heartland of straight America. As the virus leaks out of homosexual circles and into the rest of society, we need have no illusions about who is receiving the blame. The ten years ahead may decide for the next forty whether gays claim their liberty and equality or are driven back, once again, as America's caste of detested untouchables. It's more than a quip: speak now or forever hold your peace.

_________________________

Two years after "The Overhauling of Straight America" appeared, the book "After the Ball -- How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 1990's", by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen,  was published.  After the Ball expanded on these ideas, largely from the standpoint of psychological manipulation and persuasion tactics of Americans toward the homosexual cause, complete with sample print ads to use, as well as suggestions for radio and TV spots.

 

Comments

[Joe Brummer]

If you want to believe there is an agenda, you will convince yourself there is an agenda. But this begs the most obvious to be pointed out, don't you have an agenda? Doesn't Exodus have an agenda? Why is it bad that there is a gay agenda, but dandy if Exodus has one?

I often ask, but rarely see an answer, what is the goal here, Alan? What are you working towards? What will this world look like if you reached that goal? When you can honestly answer those questions, I will share my official copy of the gay agenda with you.

[Scott]

Oddly funny. In my 15 years of being an out, open gay person, the only people I hear talk about the "Overhauling of Straight America" are anti-gays.

I'd honestly never heard of it until Lou Sheldon started shrieking about it.

[Alan Chambers]

Joe, Like I said, having an agenda isn't a crime. We all have agendas.

Yet people like you laugh or balk when anyone mentions that there is a calculated effort by the major gay activist organizations to bring about their agenda for marriage, education, etc. It doesn't make sense to me.

Do you not look at articles like the one posted here or the organized movement to change how we look at marriage, education, adoption, etc. as an agenda?

The point isn't having an agenda, but rather helping Americans to see that there has been an all out campaign to bring about a complete change in how we understand homosexuality. Rather than sliding under the radar, I believe that the agenda should be on the table for everyone to view and see what it is the activist gay organizations truly want to see accomplished in this country.

You and anyone else can keep saying that there isn't an agenda and that it's all about people being equal--well, that just isn't the truth.

You and so many of the gay folks that I dialogue with are kind and well-meaning, in my opinion. But, you don't represent the HRC's of the world---they might use you and want to make the world think that you and they are the same in order to slide under the radar, but they have an oppressive agenda. Maybe you are just a willing pawn.

[NG]

Well, let's see Alan... In 1987, I would have been 27, and if memory serves, this would have been the period in which I had no time to have a social life and spent my 20's and 30's working a twelve to fifteen hour shift on a job which in retrospect amounted to nothing.

So this book you cite didn't mean anything to me then.

The only agenda is the one you're pushing and not making money on supposedly.

[Joe Brummer]

Alan, You speak of this agenda like it is a secret thing that lurks in the shadows. Perhaps what gay activists roll their eyes at is the word agenda. It has become aligned with a sinister evil plan those gay folks have to take over the world. Perhaps a new way to see this issue is to change the words.

It is my belief that all gay people have the "intention" to change the world to accept us. For far too long we are treated like second class dogs.

You still haven't answered the real elephant in the room Alan. As you work to fight hate crime laws, fight ENDA, fight marriage, fight bullying programs that include sexual orientation, fight GSA's in the schools. Whay is your goal Alan, what do you want the world to look like for gay people?

What is it you are working towards and where are the gay people in that picture?

[Alan Chambers]

Gay people have every opportunity in America that I do. In fact, they probably have more opportunity than I do.

ENDA and Hate Crimes legislation are dangerous experiments. Just ask people in other countries like Ake Green, the pastor arrested in Sweden for preaching about homosexuality from Romans 1. He was charged with a hate crime. Sorry, the slippery slope is very slippery.

I do believe that gay and lesbian people have been treated poorly in the past and amends must be made, but not at the expense of forcing people to treat homosexuality as the equivelant of heterosexuality.

I am not an advocate of firing people because of their homosexuality, if they are in the secular workplace. But, ENDA might be something forced on churches and religious institutions. That is a violation of my rights.

Sorry, Joe. My agenda is to help people who are in conflict live according to their biblical beliefs. My agenda is to educate our world about the biblical truth concerning sexuality. My agenda is to show people that they do not have to give in to their temptations and urges and to encourage them to give those struggles to the Lord who is more than able to help them. My agenda is to keep homosexuality out of the public schools and to protect our kids from being taught that homosexuality is a wonderful option.

At the end of the day, I don't care if we lose the battles of Hate Crimes and ENDA. I care that people have the freedom to choose their own path when they are old enough to do so.

[Alan Chambers]

NG,
I never said that I wasn't making money. I said that compared to the heads of organizations like HRC I am in poverty.

I make a decent living and I am grateful for that. I make enough to live well.

But, the phrase "ex-gay for pay" and being touted as the benafactors of the rich and powerful religious right are incorrect. When the President of HRC is making at least $200,000 a year and has a budget that far exceeds Exodus' 10 year budget I find it ironic that I am supposed to consider him and others as living second class lives.

[Alan Chambers]

Do you guys have any comments on the article or do you want to continue diverting?

[Joe Brummer]

Homosexuality is an option? Since when? That clearly implies choice, Alan. We both know that isn't supported by any science or reality. It is an irrational statement.

Your agenda is one that causes people to suffer. My agenda is to end the suffering. Far to many people have suffered at the hands of those who claim to have "the truth".

[Alan Chambers]

Um, science shows nothing of the sort, Joe. Point to a study that has proven there is no option. I am living an option and so are you. To say there is no option is the lie.

My agenda gives people information--all of the information. It validates people's right to choose.

Your disgust for my position shows your intolerance and arrogance.

[Scott]

It's a little dishonest to complain about the HRC's budget when the majority of Exodus' activities are "off the books".

Focus on Family is a 140 MILLION dollar a year organization and they promote your group often as well as pay for Love Won Out.

Coral Ridge is also a multi million dollar a year organization that pushes Exodus.

Finally, your salary at Exodus as well as your housing allowance may seem reasonable or even low on Exodus' tax return but you don't mention honorariums for your speaking.

I'm sure you were paid to speak at the conference this last weekend.

I'm sure you get paid by the FRC when you or any member of your staff appear before congress or at a "Values Voters" rally.

Your travel is paid by other groups, your speaking fees don't appear on Exodus' tax forms because it legally isn't part of Exodus' business plan.

Let's not even begin to talk about the money you make by selling books.

So yes, Alan, if we were to go by Exodus' public records on what your business makes, you are making far less than some in the "non-profit" world.

However, if we count your side jobs as well as the mountain of free promotion your books and organization receives from various Christian groups around the country, it would appear that you're doing better than you let on.

[Joe Brummer]

To say there is no option is the truth. The lie is telling people you are no longer same sex attracted but then follow that with the fact that you have "Temptations" the next. That is the real lie and I didn't tell it, you did.

Your own study showed that out of 73 people only 11 of them were able to "reduce" their same sex attractions. None of them are truly ex-gay. They just call them self something else. The real lie isn't mine.

[Randy]

We all have agendas. We all have value systems and we all want those value systems to be heard.

We live in a great country where we all can be heard and engage the system.

When I first read the paper that Alan quotes I was very upset on two levels. 1) as a Christian man who feels that there is a Value System above all of ours that this agenda conflicts with and 2) as a former gay man who was manipulated by a larger agenda intent on proselytizing a gay worldview. They used my pain to empower their agenda.

By lending my voice and identifying as gay, I empowered a political ideology that told me I was a victim instead of an empowered individual. Now that I don't identify as gay and reject gay political ideology ... I have not felt like a second class citizen ever since.

What should be scary is that if you identify as gay and never heard of the above paper... why is it that all of it has basically been accomplished, and you not know it? Do you not know what those who claim to lead you are doing?

It's called marketing. Marketing implants dissatisfaction and then offers the solution. Civil Rights came from the truth behind the legitimate needs of the protected classes in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gay rights is coming purely out of a marketing saturation and slogans...not the total truth.

As outlined in Alan's post.

[Scott]

It's called marketing. Marketing implants dissatisfaction and then offers the solution.

Right Randy, create a marketable problem "The Homosexual Agenda" or "Militant Gay Activists" or "The homosexuals are out to destroy the family as we know it".

Then offer a solution. "Donate and we can fight the militant homosexuals".

Then you can spend the money and hire somebody named Amanda to lobby for you.

Please don't pretend we can't see you.

[David Roberts]

See what happens when you spend the day at an anti-gay pep rally? You know better than this, Alan, or you should.

What if I were to dig up something equally obscure from a paper in the 1940s concerning the "Overhauling of White America"? Would you claim that all those civil rights leaders, volunteers and just plain good people were acting on marching orders from that document? And let's avoid the argument that gay rights are not civil rights, because even if you take that stand the analogy is sound.

Like Joe, I've never read this piece when it was not in the context of an article by an anti-gay organization. There is another one floating around about sodomizing sons and daughters, you may as well put that up, too. I don't know the source, but I do know this one was written during the most desperate part of the AIDS crisis and I'm sure a lot of frustration was put down on paper during that time.

Shame on you for assigning this stuff any more importance than it should have - an obscure article from 20 years ago, not a massive agenda or marching orders. Or would you think it fair for me to assign Paul Cameron's manifestos from the same period to you and others in the "pro-family" crowd?

[Scott]

David, you are thinking about Michael Swift's piece that was explicitly labeled as a satire in the publication that produced it.

What is funny about that particular article is that certain Christian groups omitted the introduction of the piece labelling it as satire and distributed an incomplete version to scare their followers.

It was even read into the Congressional Record minus the disclaimer by an anti-gay congressman.

It has been repeatedly misconstrued by certain types of Christians to show evidence of a "homosexual agenda" (read, boogeyman).

[David Roberts]

"It was even read into the Congressional Record minus the disclaimer by an anti-gay congressman."

Yeah, I remember that. It's on the web all over, using the "Congressional Record" part to give it unwarranted authenticity for those who don't understand that one can read anything into the record - phone books, etc.

I find all this very sad because I try hard to be fair in my analysis of opposing views. While others may think this post is par for the course, I really didn't expect it out of Alan.

[Joe Brummer]

Randy, I am sorry to say your words made me sick to my stomach. I have seen the legitimate need of gay couples, who after 30 plus years together have lost it all because families stepped in and contested wills. Believe me their is a legit need for civil rights for gays and lesbians. For you to suggest otherwise is not only cruel and inhuman, it lacks any sense of compassion.

If you are not able to identify with the suffering and need of gays and lesbians and their rights to jobs, housing, etc, it is only because you have closed your eyes.

[Joe Brummer]

I have to say, as an atheist I struggle with these notions of "god's plan" as I find them all to convenient. The majority of people who claim to know god's plan claim to know it from reading the bible. I struggle with that, especially when it comes to homosexuality. The questions of homosexuality are very complex, and to state the bible has the answers in simple terms to such complex questions is so over simplified.

The whole question of god is incredibly complex, to assume in anyway that a bunch of scrolls found in a cave 2000 years ago can tell us god's plan is so over simplified that I can express how incredibly void of rationale that is.

Alan, you claim here to know God's plan for man and that homosexuality doesn't fit the plan. DO you realize how huge your statement is? Are you really so bold as to tell me you know god's plan? Are you really so bold as to tell me that you can simplify the question of god's existence to a plan that you happen to know?

If you can prove this I will be happy to leave my partner and follow anything you tell me.

[malachai levine]

Straight out of the ADF. Copy, cut and pasted. Boo hoo hoo. Bitter, party of four table's ready.

[NG]

But don't you think, Alan, it's rather arrogant and dishonest of you to say you're in poverty when you're obviously not?

[Alan Chambers]

I posted this article here because the gay blogosphere was once again laughing at the fact that we think there is a gay agenda. This article is an early outline of an agenda that has been accomplished in our world today. Why is this article, written by early activists, so offensive to you guys? I think it was brilliantly written, has been flawlessly accomplished and am only highlighting it so that people see that there is in fact an agenda, has been an agenda and will continue to be one.

Your anger shocks me. This wasn't an attack, just proof.

As for all of the comments on Exodus' financials and my income, you guys have no clue. As any honest tax paying citizen, I report everything that I make. So when you see my income on my tax returns that some on your side have reported on, that includes my honorariums and any income that I bring in.

I have no problem reporting that at each Love Won Out event I make $500. There are 5 of those a year and so that is $2500/year. I have never been paid by the Family Research Council for speaking at their events. This past weekend the Family Impact Summit agreed to pay me $500 to speak for 2 days. I paid for gas, lodging and meals.

As for my book, ALL of the proceeds went to Exodus. Because of an Intellectual Property Clause in our by-laws anything I work on at Exodus is the property of Exodus. I will not make any royalties off of the book, either.

SOME organizations that ask me to speak for them do pay airfare and accomodations. SOme give me an honorarium. As I stated above, those are all in my tax reporting. So what you see is what I actually make.

Now, let's talk about Focus on the Family, the $140M/year organization that we happen to be good friends with. THEY have a conference called Love Won Out that is NOT an Exodus Conerence. THEY pay for Love Won Out, actually lose money on each event, because it is THEIR conference, not ours. Sure, this is a benefit to Exodus, but to infer that it is anything but a Focus event isn't true.

We do not get any money from Focus on the Family that isn't reported. Focus has, in the past, randomly given Exodus monetary gifts. THey have never been the biggest gifts of the year nor significant portions of our annual income. THey are a ministry and we are a ministry.

Coral Ridge, another friendly ministry, has never given to Exodus.

So, you can try to make Exodus look like we are more than we are, you can believe that we are hiding something with all of your heart, but we aren't. And, there is no comparison to Exodus and HRC.

Finally, let's get off the poverty issue. I have never said that I was actually in poverty. I said, again, COMPARED to others I am in poverty. Might have been a bad choice of words. I am not in poverty. Leslie and I make a decent living and we live beneath our means and save for the future.

[Alan Chambers]

By the way, a friend of mine on the other side emailed me last night and said that I needed to apologize for posting this article. I absolutely cannot for the life of me understand with this post is so unbelievably offensive.

Someone rational, explain why this post is hurtful to the gay community.

[Joe Brummer]

Why is this offensive? (in my humble opinion)

It has more to do with "why" you posted it, some of which may wrap up in assumptions people have made about "why" you have posted it.

This also has much to do with "history". Historically, the right side of this argument speaks of the "gay agenda" or as they say it, the homo agenda as some sort of secret society thing. It is also painted as a "bad thing". When gays laugh it off, it is for 2 big reasons. The first being the "grouping" factor. To say there is a gay agenda is to say their is a black agenda or a disable persons agenda. It lumps an entire group of people into one. It is void of the diversity within just that group. Different parts of the gay rights movement are important to different people. We are not one group, we are many. It is offensive and invokes a certain sense of anger because most gay and lesbians people are tired of being lumped together under a blanket that doesn't fit.

The second reason is the idea that civil rights for gays and lesbians are a bad thing. You will always have anger returned to you when you tell an entire group of people that they don't warrant or deserve the rights they seek. You have gone as far as to say they we have the same rights when that is untrue in the mind of those offended. It boils down to no this isn't an agenda, it is our lives.

There is also a history with you personally and Exodus. The people who are angry and offended have watched you, followed you, and heard you change your story, change your facts, make claims that couldn't be true. This just looks like another "Cheap Shot" at the gay people. Yes, that is offensive.

It has much to do with looking at this from someone else's shoes.

[Jonathan]

You are kidding me right Alan? You can't figure out why you should apologize? You aren't a stupid man. You play word games better than anyone I've ever witnessed. And yet, you can't figure this one out? Right!

And then we have Randy saying some kind of silliness! You know Randy, I don't feel like a second class citizen because I'm gay! Thankfully! But that's totally because I don't listen to the crap that people like you spout off! I live an amazing life! Having a pretty amazing partner! Have a beautiful child who just turned 9 years old! Have an extended family who loves me, supports me and with whom I am very close with. I am however treated, especially by people like you and Alan, as a second class citizen because, as Alan so delicately puts it homosexuality "isn't the equivalent of heterosexuality."

Alan, I have one small comment about the silly assertion I've heard you and others try to make about ENDA when you pick events from other countries to try to point out what you say "could" happen here. If you look at all of these other countries you'll find that they don't have something that we as Americans are blessed to have. They don't have a Constituion that provides certain inalienable rights. Go read it again! Because you act like if certain of these things are put through, our Constitution (which has lasted this many years) will suddenly cease to be in effect. That's an argument based on ignorance and fear.

j.

[Alan Chambers]

How have we changed our story, Joe?

And, I have been very clear about this being a part of the activist gay agenda---maybe I need to sub-categorize even further. I know you are an activist, but I would attribute the real agenda to HRC, GLSEN, etc.

I do believe this is organized and calculated. You think I am ridiculous for believing that but I think you are incredibly naive for not recognizing it.

[Randy]

Calling Alan Stupid? My opinions "silly"?

hmmmm... ok. Thanks for your opinion.

[Scott]

No more organized and calculated than the campaign to stop ENDA or Hate Crimes legislation.

The HRC is one organization.

How many are involved in the Arlington Group and at what point do you all get the same talking points faxes or decide strategy in a conference call?

Yes, Randy, your opinions are silly (and you and Alan have been caught repeating untruth after untruth).

How often have you both resorted to repeating the lie that hate crimes laws don't include ex-gays and will "silence Christians" when it has been demonstrated over and over again that you are telling a lie?

[Alan Chambers]

Hey Joe,

I am waiting for the scientific proof that there is no other option to being gay.

[Alan Chambers]

Scott,

Like I said, having an agenda isn't a crime. OF COURSE, we all have agendas.

The agendas you attribute to the pro-family movement are ones that seek to affirm traditional values and natural marriage....the very thing that the gay lobby is out to change.

[Jonathan]

Randy:

You need to pay attention when you read what others are saying. I absolutely did NOT call Alan stupid. I said Alan was not a stupid person at all.

Further Randy, you yourself said that you allowed yourself be manipulated in your former life. As I have read your parroting of the other side now, one wonders if you aren't allowing yourself to be manipulated by this side now. One wonders, after reading your own words, if you aren't one who is easily manipulated.

Your opinions, while equally as valid as my own, came across in your comment as silliness. Why? Because everything I read in your post is just as easily attributable to what you are doing. You make protestations about the other side, then turn around and do the exact same thing. I read an interesting article in Newsweek recently about this very phenominon. It's all about playing games. It's about trying to get attention.

Once again, please note that I absolutely did NOT call Alan stupid. You should also note that I didn't call you a silly man. I did however say that your opinion on this matter was silly. Of course, that's just my opinion.

j.

[Scott]

Show me, Alan how the "gay lobby" is out to change your ability to adhere to whatever traditional value you choose.

So "militant homosexual activists" (your words, not mine) are going to invalidate your family?

[Moby]

These gadflies (aka "ex gays") need to get a life.

[Joe Brummer]

Alan,
I will be happy to show you the science that being gay is the only "honest" option. You just did the study. The one that showed on 11 people over 3 years experienced a moderate decline in homo attractions. In other words, they are all still same sex attracted. No one went from gay to straight. Regardless what they have told you or others, they are still gay. They can call it what they want, but they are still gay.

Furthermore Alan, no miracle has happened here, no god, no anything but smoke and mirrors. I know dozens of men who were married, had children, called them self straight and then later in life came out as gay. You are just doing the opposite of what they did and going in the opposite direction. It is no miracle and under closer scrutiny no act of god.

Now, if you really want to talk science, lets have you prove there is a god. Then you have to prove the one you are following is the right one. If anyone has the burden of proof my friend it is you. You are willingly causing others to suffer to please a god you cannot prove exists. To then say through this god that people have gone from gay to hetero which is another claim for which you have no proof. You have not much proof for many of your claims.

How about the thousands of people you claim have gone ex-gay, but yet you could only find a mere 78 to do a study? You make some large claims you cannot back up. Claims that affect the rights and lives of others. Don't be surprised that we are offended. What we really want to see is you backing up your claims, but you haven't.

[Butch Law]

You go Joe, as you have brought up very valid points. Alan can't answer certain questions publicly or he would lose his job, so he cherry picks the ones that won't stump him. I would like to hear Alan's proof that there is a God, and all the trappings that go along with it. I would also like to hear his comments on lefties, shellfish eaters, and all the other "abominations" or "put to death" threats in Leviticus, and why they seem not to pertain to current time, but his favorite subject, homosexuality, does. Trust me on this one, Alan won't touch any of this. Hear this Alan, you're being called out. Now spill. Or is your checking account to low to buy a spine?
I find it totally ironic and chuckle worthy that the very bastion of people that say gay people are all going to hell, are the very ones going down in flames. And we allll know who's waiting for them there.

[Romeo]

I think Butch is right on. I believe Alan has an obligation to back up his religious beliefs with reason, and buck up and answer these questions. His beliefs are why he is in this game anyway. Lets hear it Alan. I would like to also hear proof that all those psychics and channels in the Bible were hearing the true "word of God" while you are at it.

As far as a "gay agenda" goes, isn't it the right wing that has the gay agenda; to convert or wipe out gays and homosexuality? Could this be Alan's way of staying attached to his gay side that he detests and tries so desperately to get rid of so much? Seems so.
I would say gay people have a Gay Acceptance Agenda which is admirable and yields great valor. For people with rational minds, acceptance has eventually always trumped rejection.

[NG]

So, Alan, if it's not a crime to have an agenda, just what exactly is the purpose of drudging up this 1987 gay porn magazine article? An article, incidentally, which no one on this topic interaction seems to be aware of?

[lyssa]

Well, I would jump in this fight, but since the straight looking straight acting gays have already sold me and my trans woman partner donw the river so that can "look just like everybody else," I think I'll just sit back and laugh my ass off.

Silly gays, hating transpeople is wrong!

[Alan Chambers]

What? Lyssa, please explain.

[Markette]

Alan, wow, can you answer the kid?